About your Search

20130201
20130228
STATION
MSNBC 8
MSNBCW 8
CNNW 7
CNN 5
FBC 1
LANGUAGE
English 34
Search Results 0 to 33 of about 34 (some duplicates have been removed)
. >> on the other side of capitol hill, senate majority leader harry reid says it's the republicans' fault. no butts about it. >> i think he should understand who is sitting on their posterior. the speaker is doing nothing to try to pass anything over there. >> well, the president didn't engage in the posterior pow-wow but did play the blame game. >> there are too many republicans in congress right now who refuse to compromise even an inch when it comes to closing tax loopholes and special interest tax breaks. and that's what's holding things up right now. >> "outfront" tonight democratic congressman chris van holland. not every day we get to hear that word used on capitol hill. >> i will put aside the posterior politics right now. other than that, let's get at it. >> the president criticized republicans for their unwillingness to raise taxes in order to reduce the deficit but i wanted to ask you this, because you know the numbers. the tax policy center has said that nearly 80% of american households have gotten a higher federal tax bill because of the fiscal cliff deal you all did at the beginning
by harry reid to the filibuster. let's listen. >> the filibuster of senator hag hagel's nomination is unprecedenced. i repeat never in the history of our country has a secretary of defense nominee been filibustered. never, ever. >> has this ever happened before? anything similar? or are we talking about the details to secretary of defense nominees? >> it is unpress denned for a secretary of defense nominee. the closest example to a cabinet-level position being filibustered or attempted to be filibustered is steven johnson, epa secretary under president bush. some tried to filibuster him, they couldn't get enough votes. that wasn't technically a cabinet-level position or an actual cabinet position this is actually the first time that a cabinet secretary has been filibustered, and republicans don't want to call it a filibuster, that's the practical effect of what we see here today. >> let's take a listen to what senator john mccain said about the issues that republicans have about chuck hagel. >> to be honest with you, neil, it goes back to there is a lot of ill will toward senator h
you think you should be going after harry reid as well? >> well, listen. i think harry reid has been clear that he will bring this for a vote. there's a bipartisan group of members of congress working on this issue, in particular universal background checks. and i don't think that democrats are the issue here. there are a number of republicans including self-proclaimed moderates who have yet to commit to support something that has the support of 90% of americans. columbine may not have happened if we had universal background checks. those guns were purchased at a gun show without checks. this won't solve every issue but it'll go a long way in terms of addressing the problem. >> great to see you. >>> i want to bring in our friday political power panel. gang, it's great to have you all here. let's dive into sequestration because it's just so fun. david brooks' article in the "new york times" saying the president hasn't come up with a proposal to avert sequestration let alone one that is politically plausible. peggy noonan in "the wall street journal" is saying it's always cliff ceiling
. >> but wasn't it harry reid and the democrats who didn't want to do more about the filibuster for fear when the table turned they didn't have the option? >> we've seen from republicans when the tables turn they'll do anything they want it do and do it quickly in order to press their own agenda. so it is disappointing. but having said that, the republicans are now saying, oh, no, this isn't a filibuster, this is just slowing the process down. we're going to do it on our own timetable but we are going to do it. chuck hagel will be the secretary of defense. so it's just an immature, i think, silly power play on their part. they're going to approve him but they want to drag it out. and i think it may be -- it may be a prelude to what's going to come. >> speaking of this evenings dr out, the sequester, the republicans have put a plan in $110 billion in cuts. an article says speaker boehner really is a point where he has a you-first attitude towards democrats and republicans. he wants to see what the democrats and president will put forth because of the hard-fought battles he's faced with his own
or the other party. it's everywhere. nobody is asking harry reid why he hasn't had a budget in four years. nobody is holding his feet to the fire like they have republican's feet to the fire? the media also has to be equal opportunity and say i'm going to go after republicans on this side, harry, where is your budget? >> margaret, would your great grandfather have looked at this and thought it's the republican's fault, they are too splintered. that the tea party, that crept in a couple of years ago split the party too much, no coherent voice? >> all descendents can get in the trap of saying they know exactly what their -- whatever their presidential relative would have said. what i can say, what i do know about herbert hoover, he had a successful first half of his term passing bipartisan legislation for trade, the smoot holly bill. some suggest it was a major contributor to the economic slowdown. others suggest it's been vastly overstated. but it ultimately passing bipartisan legislation comes down to a president's ability to lead and to work with the congress. and hoover had been in wash
steenkamp on valentine's day. to politics now and senate majority leader harry reid is staying put. the nevada democrat says he will run for a sixth senate term in 2016 when he'll be 76 years old. he won a tough re-election battle against sharron angle in 2010. rand paul is putting his money where his mouth is. the fiscal conservative is returning about 17% of his senate office budget to the u.s. treasury. that amounts to $600,000. >> it's time to allow marriage for gay and lesbian couples. >> couples are committed, they ought to have i think the same sort of rights that everyone has. >> former first lady laura bush will no longer be seen in that ad supporting marriage equality. the group behind this spot has agreed to remove her from it. mrs. bush's spokeswoman says the former first lady did not approve the use of the 2010 interview that is featured in the ad. >>> at the same time former republican presidential candidate jon huntsman says he supports same sex marriage. the former utah governor made the announcement in an op-ed in the american conservative. >>> and the grandson of
's be honest about why harry reid did that. they were going in recess. if reid held the vote on friday and they got cloture, they would not have had a final vote on him until saturday or sunday. he was accommodating the republicans and the democrats' senate schedule. >> oh, no. >> let's be very clear. >> what's so wrong with voting after the recess? what's so wrong with -- >> why not vote now? is he qualified now? if he is, he's qualified today, thursday and tomorrow. he's qualified. if he's not qualified, vote against him. >> let's take a listen right now with both of you to john mccain on thursday. kristen, i'll get you to respond right after. >> to be honest with you, it goes back to there's a lot of illwill towards senator hagel because when he was a republican he attacked president bush mercilessly, at one point said he was the worst president since herbert hoover, said that the surge was the worst mrunter since the vietnam war, which is nonsense. and was very anti his own party and own people. people don't forget that. you can disagree but if you're disagreeable, people don't for
comes up at the end of the month? >> listen if harry reid wanted to bring it up he could cancel a vacation and come in next week if he wanted. the real easy answer is immediately provide the information. there is a history with the administration and the majority party not providing all of the information. they will provide a little bit here, a little bit there. hopefully you will forget about it. bottom line if they want to get this done, they should sit down with the concerned senators and actually provide the appropriate information. that is pretty simple. bill: this is what we heard. at least two of the speeches apparently were made, four, maybe five years ago that were not provided. was it intentional for him not to present these speeches because they thought it would be controversial? >> i'm not sure, certainly. but they are, people are aware of them and they need to be part of the entire package that is being presented. and the senators have an absolute right to get this information. bill: senator lindsey graham has been hot on this trail and his big issue is not having t
't attack the president. they attacked nancy pelosi and harry reid. they avoided talking about -- >> but here, they have to go one on one with the president because he's the one that they're fighting with. it is not really harry reid and nancy pelosi leading the charge. >> bill: the other thing they say, we can absorb this. it won't be so bad. $1.2 trillion, that's over ten years. yet the pentagon comes out yesterday with a -- not with a study, they reported that they've already told 800,000 civilian employees you're going to face a furlough if this kicks in. that means they take one day a week off. that's a 20% cut in their pay. again, i'm trying to get in the mindset of republicans who think it is a good idea to let this happen. >> well, even unless -- if you look at the defense spending that we would go back, this would roughly be what the defense department was spending in 2006-2007 when they're waging two wars. maybe the defense department could cut back. the pentagon has never been able to do a full audit. it is risky because the white house put out a memo. i'm sure you s
are applied. harry reid and other democrats, however, respond to that. i think this can be done responsibly. whether it is domestic spending or defense. what the president does have in his advantage here is republicans are somewhat divided in this. i think it is important for the republican caucus to stick together on this. dagen: what about that i am a conspirators sometimes, what if the economy continues to chug along at the casting, then it kind of points to the fact that more cuts should have been. you can say i am an idiot. >> i think the administration is concerned because their base does not want to see this. they have political concerns. i do not think they are practical and the terms of the government's ability to move forward and provide services and so forth. they are more worried about the political out, i think. connell: lower gdp estimates, or is there at least some individual companies that will be affected? >> the spending that obama has wanted, he has gotten. spending has increased. what do we have to show for it? the slowest economic recovery in three generations. dagen: s
. rich? >> if it's such a good idea, harry reid is bring up a bill anytime he wants. two out of ten. >> jason? >> getting passed, four out of ten. >> maria? >> i'm going to say seven out ten. universal background checks. let's start with that. >> lz? >> i'm going seven out of ten as well. i agree i believe there's sensible things that are proven to be bipartisan that we can go through without saying get your guns out. >> our facebook friends. clets check. who's winning the war on guns? for matthew, gun makers and campaign fund-raisers and especially the lawyers. from justin, the left is understanding misunderstanding how pro-gun and rational the u.s. is. from david, the criminals. the law abiding americans argue who is right. keep the conversation going facebook.com or tweet me @carolcnn. "talk back" question for you, are there any hero athletes left? mine was earned in djibouti, africa, 2004. the battle of bataan, 1942. [ all ] fort benning, georgia, in 1999. [ male announcer ] usaa auto insurance is often handed down from generation to generation because it offers a superior level
it with monica crowley radio talk show host and fox news contributor. harry reid said just when you thought things continue get worscouldn't get worse, it gets worse. >> senator reid is sanctimonious on this point blaming the republicans and getting all up in arms about the fact that the republicans are holding off on this nomination when the democrats have performed similar maneuvers to try to block republican nominees including george h.w. bush's choice for defense secretary john tower. and nominee john bolton. jon: this is the kind of thing that has happened before. >> on both side, correct. nothing new here. jon: why are the administration, and democrats in the senate making it out as though the sky is falling here? >> they are trying to make a political argument that the republicans are just doing this for politics but nothing could be further from the truth. chuck hagel is a very problematic nominee. he had one of the most disastrous confirmation hearing performances in recent history. we are still getting information that he should have disclosed at the outset when he was first nomin
with the sequester idea. in fact he has the exact time and date when they first pitched it to senator harry reid, july 27th, 2011. what's your read on that? >> very detailed reporting by bob woodward there. it's an interesting take. certainly the republicans have jumped on. it's been a debate over the last few weeks about who -- actual lit last few months about whose idea this was. you have jack lew, the former chief of staff to the president, up for treasury secretary who said it at a hearing. this was a republican idea. you see the president has sort of hinted at that, too. more recently jay carney at the white house has acknowledged this isn't a white house idea. the republicans are making a big issue of that. as much as the white house is fanning the flames of concern now, sounding the alarms this week it was their idea. they're saying the president needs to come and meet us and sort of acknowledge we gave a little bit on the fiscal cliff on taxes and not going to do it this time. that's the strategy the republicans are using to pin it on the white house. >> joann, they're really blaming the
a, quote, filibuster. it won't be a filibuster, but they're forcing harry reid to basically go and get 60 votes to confirm hagel. >> why is that? >> why are they doing it? >> why the change? why the change of heart? >> well, i think mccain has gone back and forth. i think at the beginning he suggested that he might try to block hagel's nomination. then he defended him the other day when the criticism really got out of bounds. and now he's back to saying he may try to block it. but it feels like reid will get his 60 votes. >> he's going to, but willie, they keep going back to benghazi. by the way, listen, we've said here clearly the white house screwed up, the state department screwed up, it was hillary clinton's low point. they asked for security in benghazi. they didn't get it. the ambassador asked for help. he didn't get it. what does that have to do with chuck hagel? >> well, john mccain has been trying to get answers from the white house about benghazi. i think he sees this as a moment of leverage now. he can hold this up. he's got a bunch of republican senators who will fo
and need more time. it was harry reid who called this vote as sort of an attempt to call their bluff saying this is enough, you're delaying this for no reason but i don't think this is going to help the republicans' image especially when they're going around saying we're not actually trying to stop this nomination. we're not actually filibustering, so what are they doing? i think especially for people who are sick of the sort of washington games, this isn't a good image for them. >> jake, let's talk about this break that congress is on. house speaker nancy pelosi blamed republicans for not using this time more productively. take a listen. >> they manufactured the crisis and instead of having us try to avert that crisis they go on a nine-day recess. why? ? why? people outside the congress are saying no deal, no break. >> why, jake, why? >> nancy pelosi did similar things when she had control but that simplifies a complicated issue. democrats and republicans and the president are miles apart when it comes to averting the sequester. democrats want to raise taxes. republicans say they don't wan
york times." he begins with these words. on july 26, 2011, jack lew went to harry read's budget for a session. according to bob woodward's book, they came up with a trigger idea to force a budget deal. what's the idea, reid asked? sequestration, lew said. reid folded himself over with his head between his knees as if he was going to throw up. here's the question. if this is such a horrible idea, sequestration or these forced budget cuts, why did the white house come up with this idea to begin with? >> well, as you remember, wolf, in the summer of 2011, we were facing a situation where the nation was about to default for the first time in its history because republicans were refusing to agree to a balanced approach to a deficit reduction. both sides were looking for a way to craft a deal that would avoid default and a trigger mechanism. sequestration, which is a word that most americans have never heard before, is simply a way of crafting policy that was so onerous that would cause cuts that nobody liked, republicans or democrats, and because of that they would compel the prospec
Search Results 0 to 33 of about 34 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)